Why Divine Goodness or Power? Why God? Why Liberation?: Critiques and Affirmations of James Cone

Abstract

The passionate and compelling theology of James Cone drew both intense support and strong criticism almost immediately after it was in presented in his initial publication. Now, as then, the same people often voice these two responses. Each of the four thinkers examined here, William R. Jones, Anthony B. Pinn, Delores S. Williams, and Dwight N. Hopkins critique at least some aspect of Cone’s thought. Jones asserts theodicy must be the central category for black theology and argues that humanocentric theism or religious humanism could be the best way to encourage black resistance against suffering and oppression. Pinn believes the very category of theodicy begs the question of God’s goodness and power. In distinction from Cone and Jones, Pinn argues for humanism, in which humanity is both functionally and ontologically ultimate. Both Pinn and Williams show the dangers of redemptive suffering theodicy and maintain that suffering has no redemptive qualities. As a womanist theologian, Williams represents here arguably the most significant critique of Cone’s early work. Though able to see the disease of racism inherent in society and theology, Cone was blind to the sexism within his own theology.